click to show more information

click to hide/show information About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






Harrison 5, Us 3, Entire City 2, Sally 2, Cmac 1, Useds 1, The Organization C Mac 1, Pdr 1, Abc 1, Mist 1, The City 1, California 1, Chris Shaffer 1, Terance Allen 1, Fong 1, Gavin Newsom 1, Shawn Manchester 1, Terance 1, Slims 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 16, 2012
    9:30 - 10:00pm PST  

of retail it's permitted in rad and you get more flexibility with it and with retail. there are limits to the size and kind ofs retail and restaurants or bars and general retear and varies by district and there is a size limitation in any district in the planned area. in terms of office it is prohibited complete in the sally. currently had there is a small provision that allows work space professionals to be permitted but it's restrictive. i'm not aware of any projects that used that provision and the office is not permitted in the sally but principally allowed in the wmou and it's as office district.
within the commercial districts on ninth, tenth and folsom one story of office is permitted and right now there is none on harrison street and it's only allowed in the wmoug in the enclave districts and landmark or article 10 or 11 buildings. pdr and arts -- like a lot of districts in the city. most pdr uses are permitted as a right except in the rad except with the exceptions of some of the uses that are allowed in pdr1 and pdr2. arts activities and allowed in many districts? the city and. >> >> and in western soma protecting the arts is a big deal and generally committed
throughout the planned area especially within the sally district. again this goes to the split height, the way that you chief the additional height in sally is dedicate one story in the building to permanent arts activity use and whichever story you dedicate is 15 feet high so you get the extra 15 feet that way. night time entertainment -- currently not permitted in the district but as a conditional use in the sso and a small amount of the planned area. under the new zoning it would become principally permitted within the sally and the wmo districts except in the 200-foot buffers in the enclave districts and that opens up land that is not available for new night time entertainment to open up, but it prohibits north of
harrison street and it's the way it is now and the neighborhood commercial districts and obviously in the enclave districts it's not permitted but important to note and live performances and accessory and piano player or something like that at a restaurant. that will be permitod folsom street. and so here's just a quick map showing the buffers around the enclave districts. in the sally it did not show the buffers around the reason clarify districts. >> >> and no night time use is permit the there but allowed with enclave districts and that is a segue into a request made by the commissioner and supervisor kim that we present some alternative zoning
scenarios for the 11th street corridor between harrison and folsom and that contains a cluster of entertainment uses and other related uses, so we did under go analysis and found existing conditions within that corridor and looked at multiple alternatives and we wanted to present those to you for your review, so under the existing conditions you can see there are a number of night time entertainment uses. you have slims, dna, butter bar, mist, beat box, and you have a couple of vacant sites on the corner as well. we also have a couple of bars in the area, and there is a limited amount of residential development in the area too, right on 11th street and also in the surrounding area. although a large portion of those are live-work units and effectively
function for the purpose of conflicts with other uses they function as residential uses. society first option to look at. >> >> for this area is basically as is in terms of as is proposed and that is keeping the corridor zoned wmug and what that would do is mean new night time entertainment uses would not be permitted and the current uses are legal conforming uses like they have for the last 20 years. the existing night time uses could potentially expand 25% with conditional use and dna lounge that came before the commission to expand this year and they would allowed to reoccupy a building under demolition with the new code and they couldn't do under the current code. residential uses are allowed just as they are
now, but there aren't many soft siteos that corridor where large amounts of residential development could take place. this is just a map showing what we already have proposed, so option 2a is -- there is 2a, 2b, 2c and variants and all of option two involves rezoning some portion of that corridor instead of wmug instead going to sally, so 2a essentially -- basically take all the properties here from harrison to folsom and zone those as sally and that is the only change and what that would do the night time entertainment uses that are there would be legal uses and new night time entertainment uses are permitted and no new residential uses are
personalitied and the ones that are there would be legal non conforming uses and important note. sally even though it doesn't have the name of pdr district is essentially a pdr housing and doesn't allow housing or office but allows other things, and this gives you look at 2a option. so 2b is essentially the same thing except jumping folsom street to capture the two corner lots. one reason is because one of the existing -- it's vacant but existing night time intraim entertainment location is on the north corner there and see the club and there is another varant taking it across folsom street and 2c is basically doing the
same thing, rezoning the corridor to sally, but also taking the two alleys on either side of the corridor and taking the existing residential lots and soft sites within the alleys and making them new enclave districts for residential development exercise what that essentially does, and you can't see it too well in the screen here but in the printow i believe you can. it does rezone sally so essentially new night time entertainment is permitted, but the buffers that we spoke about before would apply to these rad districts and the buffers would extend over that corridor except a small portion of the northern corner, the soft site, so essentially all of the corridor would not permit housing but it would not permit new night time entertainment,
so essentially the existing entertainment uses would not have the threat of new housing directly on the corridor, but the residential units in the alleys wouldn't have the threat of new night time entertainment uses on the corridor either. so options 3a, b, and c are similar except for the fact that instead of rezoning the corridor sally it would be wmuo, the office district and allows a lot of the same things as sally except no residential and does it allow office, so what you get here is again night time entertainment would be principally committed again. office uses would be introduced to the area and pdr uses can still go there but again no new residential uses would be permitted and the exiting residential uses on
that front annual would be legal non conforming using then. and then option b is the same concept in terms of jumping folsom street to capture those two sites and option c is the same thing in terms of fusing the zoning but introducing the residential enclave zoning within the alleys and you would get the same outcome in terms of no new night time entertainment but also no new residential on the corridor but with the introduction of office being permitted on the corridor. the fourth option we didn't map but it was an option raised and that is essentially to kind of do the opposite kind of buffer. we have the buffers for the residential enclaves. there could be an option for developing buffers for night time entertainment uses in this
corridor to protect them from new residential within a certain distance whether it's 100 feet, 200 feet. implementation of that could be somewhat difficult but it definitely is an option that could be looked at and because it had various parameters didn't work out we didn't map it and we feel the concept is fairly straightforward so a quick explanation of the alternatives without trying to be too complicated because they can get complicated, but i also wanted to give them an opportunity to give remarks how the task force came to the policy on night time entertainment use within the planned area. >> thank you cory and good afternoon president fong and
commissioners. jim meeko, chair of the western soma task force. there is a section where cory summarizes goals or principles behind the plan and mentions dealing with incompatibilities with entertain uses and the rest of the plan area. that kind of oversimplifies the case. it was much more important for us to deal with the broader issue of compatible and incompatible useds, and as kind of the test lab for mixed use in this city we are the first mixed use district that was established in 1990. we have a pretty good feel as to what works and what doesn't. clearly our goal is not to banish any incompatible
uses. our goal is to figure out how to deal with all of them. you're going be hearing a lot more about this as the central corridor plan comes before you because at its extreme, and i might add in a rather pollyannish way, they tend to put a lot of potentially incompatible uses all together. you will have housing. you will have office. you will have pdr, and you will have night time entertainment, and when they get to discussing how they're going to make all of that work i hope you will remember the discussion that we're having today. okay. everybody loves fun. you can't be against fun, and night time entertainment is an integral part of the fabric of south of
market, so let me make it very clear from the very start there was never any notion of restricting -- putting on any additional restrictions on night time entertainment. our goal from the very beginning was to ensure we would find a better way to make it work together and everybody is full a lot of good ideas to improve what we have. nobody wants to poor cold water on them but unfortunately the good ideas tend to involve somebody else's neighborhood. now we're talking about our neighborhood here. nobody understands the impacts of entertainment like the residents of south market. we have the greatest concentration of place of entertainment permits in the entire city, so no matter what anybody tells you south of market has the greatest
concentration of places of entertainment of permits in the entire city, and they haven't been here for all that long. the night clubs actually began to come into south of market in the mid-80's. it's kind of a consequence of the aids epidemic that with so many deaths, gay bars tended to close, and night clubs began to trickle in taking advantage of the opportunity of a lot of vacant space. south of market kind of went through a cycle for many years it was working class bars going back to the 1850's and going forward. working class bars morph into the gay bars which began to really proliferate in the early
70's and then as i say as the aids epidemic decimated our community when you lose 50 people a week you lose gay bars too. the influx of night clubs was not without conflict. leading to the 1990 rezoning the filipino community took a strong stand they were offended by the impact that night time entertainment was bring to their neighborhood. the alleys around 11th street and the other residential enclave districts are full of working class filipino families and children. as we go through the plan i hope that you recognize something that many people don't notice the residential population south of market lives in the alleys and that's why the key goal of
the western soma process is to improve things for our rads. the conflict between night clubs and neighbors got due to the worse state in the 90's when gavin newsom proposed a night time entertainment zone. at first he was talking about 40 square blocks and eventually scaled that back to 11 ethstreet but the conflict between the night clubs and the neighbors got out of hand. countless clubs were taken to court. the residents in the area primarily the newer residents were certainly used to quieter surroundings and they certainly had the means and the law on their side to take many venues
into court. on the other hand, the entertainment community fought back harshly when they felt the clubs were under siege and lead to at its worse a clear case of arson on the 15 unit residential building that was under construction at corner of 11th and harrison street just before it was ready to open it burned down to the foundation. the 1990 rezoning is predicated on opening south of market up to a denser residential population. you hear the same thing all the time, and that is a foundation of the current western soma community plan before you. we were actually given some pretty firm numbers of residential units that we should produce, and in fact in the eir we even
created a higher growth alternative at director's ram's request to meet a higher threshold because the original eastern neighborhoods proposal for our area did not reach that kind of a goal. entertainment at the same time in the 1990 rezoning was recognized as something that was worth preserving. preservation is the key word here. entertainment community is worried about losing their clubs and that is the further thing from our minds is to threaten any of the existing clubs. entertainment was grandfathered in. that means it's here now. it's here to stay. residential became as of right and that's throughout the entire south of market with the exception of the slo zoning
areaand i understand and i was involved with forming the entertainment commission so i understand entertainment issues very well, and i am not the enemy of fun. in eight years i think i supported every permit application that came before the commission with the exception of
maybe three cases. what actually threatened entertainment in this city first of all are police and abc related issues. zoning has nothing to do with that. if you're creating noise or nuisance or out of compliance with your conditions you're going to lose your permits. demographics have changed. the internet has introduced alternative options. not everyone drinks anymore. unfortunately my cardiologist won't let me which makes me very sad, but for baby boomers this the most unattractive thing.
and younger people have developed many other options for their social life in terms of entertainment opportunities there is much more of a blend between the arts and entertainment where you see more art galleries that have periodic events with live music and so on, and you also have a lot of alternatives to alcohol related activities such as the proliferation again of gyms, health clubs and i think for every block in this city has a yoga studio on it. clubs are sitting empty south of market as a result and a change from the current non conforming status to that is not going to make a difference. changing from non
conforming to has a right fully permitted is not going to allow the clubs to be any noisier, to be anymore outrageous in terms of their impact on the neighbors. either way they're zoned the same standards are going to apply, no difference. down zoning the neighbors which most of these options would result in is not going to stop them from complaining whether they are fully permitted or non conforming, conditional use, the neighbors have every right to complain if a venue is out of compliance. basically this has been written into law for a thousand years. the basic man's home is his castle now translates down to everyone is entitled to the peaceful and quiet use and enjoyment of their home. the western soma process as we described at our first
informational hearing was a process of inclusion. the arts and the entertainment are represented on the task force. we had three town hall meetings. entertainment was on the agenda for each of the meetings. 200 or more residents and small business owners and entertainment people participated in each of those three town hall meetings. i can fully admit at the first town hall meeting tensions were throughout the room. there was a lot of tension, a lot of anxiety because neighbors were afraid of what was to come and the entertainment community was there arguing for more certainty. i can credit chris shaffer and the professional facilitators that she brought into that town hall meeting to
kind of tone down the tension and the anxieties and instead turn people -- everybody involved there on more to a simple problem solving path. how do we make these potentially incompatible activities fit within a greater community plan? and i must also credit terrace allen who was the first entertainment representation of the task force because when we first began to meet in the arts and entertainment focus group which we met for almost a year terance assured the neighbors the entertainment industry had no intention of asking for an entertainment zone that they weren't asking for special zoning configurations or anything. they simply wanted to be included as part of the great mix use community and to be
treated accordingly, and on that note that really eased the tensions and we proceeded through the whole first years of our process in a very cooperative vain and basically drafted the outlines of what our entertainment policy is that is before you today. upon adoption of the 1990 zoning when residential became a fully permitted use planning in the city basically put out the welcome mat to residential uses. you basically said you're fully permitted as a right. come down to south of market. buy a home. buy a property. please expand that property. this is not the scenario you've often heard where people move down to the
area of an airport and then move in at the end of the runway and they're surprised to find out there are airlines taking off. this is sort of the reverse of that. they moved down to a neighborhood where the city said the welcome mat is out and then the airport moves to their backyard. that's a little bit different, but our basic policy was we're not going to pull the welcome mat out from anybody, not from under the entertainment industry or from under the neighbors who moved in and bought property and planned on being here forever, so the basic premise of the western soma process was no losers. everyone starts off with what we got going right now and then we will work on seeing how we can enhance that for everybody.
the sally proposals that cory presented to you was one of the early suggestions that came before you but basically they violate the fundamental principle. everyone started off as equals. we didn't do anything del trimental to the entertainment community and they shouldn't be asking us to do that to the residents. this next one is an interesting suggestion and i promoted that on the task force but planning department came back to us and said it would be extremely difficult to configure because if the entertainment -- if 11th street corridor remains in the wmug zoning area those buffers would have to apply to every night time use in the wmug and that would dramatic's reduce the housing we would be able to
produce, so we dismissed those. we explored many other solutions. in fact i told you before. on the entertainment we had more than 60 meetings. 60 meetings publicly noticed devoted to subject of entertainment. the organization c mac, california music and culture industry were notified of all of the meetings. terance allen and shawn manchester and president of cmac and rob remedy and runs the clubs in the city and the director of the entertainment commission got an email every monday morning throughout the process telling them what we were discussing and they choose not to attend 60 meetings of e